�� This way, if the control fact is the first pattern in each rule it effectively disables all the beta evaluations for rules of phases other than the current one. Just be aware that by blocking the eager evaluation this way, phase switches are heavier than without the control fact, where most constraints were already previously evaluated. Obvious, but worth saying out loud... :)

�� There is also a feature that Leonardo is working on that makes the engine automatically unlink and relink parts of the network, based on the existence and possibility of matching the other required facts in a rule LHS. It might achieve similar results to what you are looking for in some cases, but that is totally based on the constraints in there and not on any arbitrary application decision.

2011/3/21 FrankVhh <frank.vanhoenshoven@agserv.eu>

Hi,

Having the same questions you had, I played a bit with agenda-groups to see
if there was any notable performance effect.

I added 200 extra rules which did not fire at all and did two "series" of
rule executions. Once with all rules within the same agenda-group and once
with the 200 extra rules in a different agenda-group, while setting focus to
the firing rules. Allthough I cannot claim statistical significance, I
didn't notice big effects.

As I consider it, the reason for still evaluating all rules is because you
would need an Update() statement everytime focus is switched to an other
agenda-group to make sure Objects are matched to those rules.

Maybe ruleflow-groups work a bit different - allthough I doubt it - but I
haven't played with them yet.

Regards,
Frank

--
View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Limiting-rule-evaluation-not-firing-tp2695533p2709697.html

Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users